K7D

<p>Various sources at Pentaxforums.com and at Pentax have confirmed the new SLR will be named k7d. Just wanted to give everyone a heads up.</p>

<p>I just want to know if it will do the laundry, ok?</p>

<p>Hmmmm. Sounds kind of Canonistic. Must be a full frame.</p>

<p>Could be, could be. All I really want is high ISO performance, fast autofocus, and more fps. Anything else is a nice bonus.</p>

<p>Miserere's Prediction #1: It ain't full-frame.</p>

<p>I'm willing to bet money on that.</p>

<p>1) I cannot say this enough, Pentax heads have said in interviews they have no intention to go full frame and don't believe this technology (APS-C) has reached it's end point (look at #4 for my more economic vs. technological take on this).</p>

<p>2) Pentax does not have full frame lenses in production. We do not know the the FA 35mm is still made, we can assume the 31, 43, 50, and 77 are in production. However, go back in time to 2006 when these lenses plus a few DA Limiteds were in production along with the 50-200 and a few other zooms....constant crying that there were no lenses avail, no long lenses, no wides, nothing. Imagine Pentax goes down that road again? Trust me, right now everyone is saying, "no Justin, I won't cry a bit, there are millions of FF lenses available to tide me over." But sure as the sun will most likely rise tomorrow, there will be post after post criticizing Pentax for failing to have modern lenses avail for a FF camera that they shouldn't have produced.</p>

<p>3) Pentax isn't going to produce a FF camera when it's back in the medium format game. If you want a bigger sensor there is an option, it's called the 645D. For Canon and Nikon who never had a medium format system, going FF was a no brainer. It's the ultimate that can be achieved with the 35mm system of lenses. However, pentax already has a legacy 67 and 645 system which has millions of lenses avail, and still has a production line of FA 645 lenses.</p>

<p>4) Is just common sense. There is limited difference in FF and APS-C quality. So little that it's not really a debate that can be won by either side when you compare advantages, but going back to the Kodak 15MP MF back (which was a 1.5X MF back) vs. the Canon 1Ds FF 15MP the Kodak beat out the Canon (narrowly but again the sensor was only marginally bigger with the 1.5X crop). However, the Kodak was 2X the price of the Canon. Digital medium format is superior to digital 35mm FF in a much bigger way than digital 35mm FF is to APS-C. Pentax can continue to produce a line of compact cameras that are feature rich, and below FF cost while sensor cost for FF cameras remain high. They can do this for a few more years at least, rather than jump into quick sand trying to battle with the 5DII or D700. You have to remember that the cost of FF cameras is not solely the result of opportunity for Canon and Nikon to scam people, but also the actual increased cost of sensors, and the hardware that goes with the bigger files. Look at the price difference of the D300 vs. the D700. A lot of the features of these cameras are similar, but the D700 is 2x the price. I wonder if Nikon makes 2X the profit?</p>

<p>My understanding based on the market share is that 5D Mk II class, D700 class cameras are 2% of the DSLR market! and that D40x class cameras are 70% or so.</p>

<p>Maybe Pentax should try to be coming out with something better than the K-m for the entry-level so they can make more money. Going high with a 1.3X K7D or a 645D is going after a teeny tiny market.</p>

<p>Exactly!!</p>

<p>That is what people don't understand. For some reason people believe that if Pentax makes a full frame camera it's going to be the king of cameras, and the company will be rolling in money so it can lavish us in all these fancy lenses we have been dreaming of. You know like a 24mm f/1.4 T&S, or a 400mm f/4....</p>

<p>Anyway, I think going medium format where they have a history and legacy of being competitive and producing a top notch product, rather than battling out for 0.3% of a 2% market share makes more sense. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they will only sell a few hundred to a few thousand (depending on price) 645Ds a year but at least they are competing where they have a base of photographers familar with their product. I'm very doubtful there are people shooting Nikon and Canon going, I really like Pentax, but they don't have a full frame camera so I'll just stick with my brand. Did it work for Sony? I mean has Sony DSLR division made a profit since the A900? I don't know but I doubt it. Basically Pentax isn't going to increase it's market share going FF so what is the point? IMO, the 645 will have a bigger impact in both advertising/prestige/buzz/cachet and sadly probably market share as well. Don't forget Pentax did sell a few 645s, 645N, 645NII, and 6x7, 67, 67II bodies and associated lenses over the years.</p>

<p>I agree with the idea that they should produce a better K-m. I'm disappointed in that camera, and what is funny is that before I really read the specs, and the reviews I was excited about it. Unfortunately, it's much too stripped down for me. It has to have a cable release socket for me to consider it!!!</p>

<p>The Nikon D5000 and EOS 500D really raise the bar for "entry level" cameras. Compared to them, the twice-warmed-over K-m looks absolutely pitiful. Well at least it's cheap..</p>

<p>BTW there is some additional rumor information on dpreview:<br>

So it's more like a "K20D Super" (same sensor) but with a better screen (full VGA), HD Video, and better Live View.</p>

<p>- Name: K7 (with or without "D") <br /> - Size: slightly smaller than K20D <br /> - Shape: peculiar, rectangular prism housing <br /> - Official announcement: during last 10 days of May <br /> - Delivery: end of June, beginning of July <br /> - Pricing: around 1,500 € (probably somewhat less) <br /></p>

<p >All of the above seems already to be pretty solid information. Much less solid, but perhaps already quite close to the truth, are the rumoured specs:<br>

- Same sensor as the K20D <br /> - Up to 6400 ISO with better noise treatment <br /> - 5 images/sec <br /> - 100 % viewfinder <br /> - Better weatherproofing <br /> - Mirror lockup <br /> - Liveview and HD Video <br /> - Better stabilizer . <br /> - Better DRE mode <br /> - 77 zones light metering <br /> - Much better AF system even with non-SDM lenses <br /> - 3 inches/ 920 000 pixels screen with in-body editing (crop...) <br /> - 1/8000 shutter with 1/250 sync</p>

<p>And for a measly 1500Euro, there's no way it'll be FF. Looks like it'll be competing w/ the Canon XTi and D90. Hopefully they had time to rework the AF module so it'll have decent predictive AF. I honestly don't see how they can do ISO6400 with an APS-C sensor unless they came up w/ some new technology...physics dictate how many photons can be measured by the photosite size in the K20D sensor...<br>

The amusing thing is the 645D uses a sensor that's the same size as FF (35mm) because it's a cropped MF camera...it's just that it's in a MF body. The other weird thing is Samsung isn't producing it (they claimed they could).</p>

 

<p>Can we wait a whole month without exploding? Hmmmm.....</p>

 

<p align="center"><img src="http://www.penta-club.ru/forum/uploads/post-1970-1240400101_thumb.jpg" alt="" width="283" height="400" /></p>

<p>If Orlandos specs are remotely accurate, I might be interested in this camera as an upgrade to my K10D.</p>

<p>The screen upgrade is a big deal, not merely a few pixels but a VGA quality screen it seems. The 100% viewfinder is less important with live view but again a really nice upgrade, and too me hints at a better viewfinder overall. <br /><br>

Now if the flash sync, fps, shutter speed, and AF hold true, this is ALMOST the camera I've been asking for (looks like plastic and I still want a metal body).</p>

<p>As far as the 645D sensor, my understanding, and I might be wrong was that it was 1.25X, which is SIGNIFICANTLY bigger than 35mm since 1.5X is still slightly bigger as I noted with the Canon 1Ds vs. the Kodak Proback.</p>

<p>Also the key advantage for Pentax and Pentax users is that it will use Pentax 645 and 67 lenses natively (67 with adapter). So people won't have to wait for lenses to come out. Secondly, as the ability to produce a true 645 sensor evolves cost effectively, it would seem logical that one will appear. Finally, the 645N body is not really that much bigger than a Nikon D1/2/3 series, and actually could be smaller than the D3 which I understand is the biggest of the Dx series cameras (I have a D1H, and I have held D2s, I have not held a D3). Bear in mind the 645N is not really any bigger than a K10D with grip (it is deeper though). Volume wise I bet a 645D is about the same size as a D3X despite the larger sensor.</p>

<p>Squared APS=current APS lenses...</p>

<p>Square is far better format for professionals than 2X3 ...virtually all professional images are cropped by an art director or lab...2X3 is merely a habit of amateurs that's inconvenient for frames and albums.</p>

<p>The LAST thing Pentax marketeers will want to do is revive disused MF lenses...they'd be nuts to miss the opportunity to sell more of the lenses they're manufacturing NOW. A new body is ONLY an opportunity to sell lenses.</p>

<p>The FIRST thing they'd want would be to blow 5DII and D700 away with a K20D price-ranged camera that was Canon/Nikon's performance equal. IMO K20D already comes within a hair of equaling the old 5D so 5DII should be easy to whup with a square sensor.</p>

<p>The ONLY people who want 2X3 are 35mm old-timers, and they're not logically Pentax's target demographic.</p>

<p>IMO they should dump all models that lack prism finders...should emphasize quality.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>I'm going to disagree.</p>

<p>2x3 was a format arrived at by sales. Back in the old days there were many film formats, and 2x3 came out on top. You can head the MF forum to look at the complaint about 645 vs. 6x6, this topic is covered in that thread. If the square format was so popular all the brands would have offered it. It seems only a few offered 6x6 cameras or backs.</p>

<p>Square makes sense in that it makes the most use out of the image circle, but most of the other pros are also cons.</p>

<p>Personally, I like square format, and often compose my shots with 4:5 in mind, and potentially 1:1 when I get it home.</p>

<p>However, most people won't be using a final square image, and thus they will have to crop away pixels to get to a final image. Since most images are semi rectangular why not just start out with a semi rectangular image and go from there. This allows you to use as much of the image frame as possible from the start by cropping in the camera. Assuming you are going to end up with a semi rectangle then the only advantage to 1:1 ratio sensor is for those who can't decide on a crop before taking the shot.</p>

<p>I'm not against a 1:1 sensor, I just don't think 2:3 is the format of amateurs or old timers.</p>

<p>I'm not betting on a square sensor, I just don't see Pentax doing something that radical with this camera. Also, Pentax has been pretty adament against the FF sensor. Maybe a bigger sensor, but not full frame. Let's not go crazy with this camera, and remember that our gear still works just as well. It's tempting to start pointing out faults in our own gear now that these crazy rumors are all around. I would be happy with even minor improvements. And the 1500 Euro price is a speculative price. It should start less than that.</p>

<p>Justin, 2X3 wasn't the result of anybody's design or desire...it sprang as a convenience as "double frame" 35mm motion picture format: the original "full frame" was literally 35mm half-frame, like Oly's Pen F or the original Leica).</p>

<p>2X3 was just a convenient way to use 35mm motion picture film, a new "double frame" format back then. Kodak always hated it because those sprocket holes meant waste.</p>

<p>2X3 became a habit and was taught as a silly artistic virtue by non-artists: photo teachers. The future ain't some old 2X3 fillum format, just ask any contemporary high schooler or professional photographer (the latter are drifting toward video).</p>

<p>645 made economic sense in disco-era for those wedding photographers who needed to save pennies with photolabs but that never made sense for people after the highest quality...which explains Hasselblad's 6X6 survival and everybody's ultimate abandonment of 645 (Hasselblad lives, /Bronica/Contax died).</p>

<p>Cameras relying forever on square format included Hasselblad and Bronica (both 6X6 and "super-slide") as well as Mamiya and Rollei. 645 was introduced primarily for low budget wedding photographers who would have preferred to keep shooting their hobbiest 35s (Pentax :-)....their labs absolutely HATED 35mm back then (called for too much dust spotting of prints as well as tricky cropping decisions...because 35m photogs framed more tightly than did Rollei/Hass photogs)...labs found it easier to deal with 120 and 220 and they liked it when the 645 photographers spared them the cropping decision they had to confront with 6X6. For wedding economics, 645 was perfect. Few couples get married these days, or want expensive photo coverage (vs video)...a rarely mentioned fact of life.</p>

<p>"Most people"(meaning those that want enlargements) have never used the full 2X3 format, they've cropped to various conventionally oddball sizes such as 8X10, 11X14, 16X20. Hardly anybody, other than educated art poseurs, has ever used the full 2X3. 4X6 prints were an early omen for the death of photolabs.<br>

<br /><br />"most images" are NOT "semi-rectangular" and in print publication they're virtually always cropped to the taste of the designer...meaning that a horizontal 2X3 is often cropped brutally and without a moment's hesitation to a vertical format, dismissing half of the film area. Art directors have always preferred 6X6, which is the main reason commercial photographers used Hasselblad rather than 645.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I like 2:3 for horizontal shots and 4:5 for verticals. I guess I'm only a semi-amateur, then :-)</p>

<p>I don't think Pentax will go square, or 4:5 or 3:4. I'll even be surprised if they go APS-H with 2:3 format. I'm hoping that they're keeping the 14.6MP CMOS from the K20D and used their money to improve all other aspects of the camera (and improve the sensor's capabilities through firmware, of course).</p>

<p>I gotta disagree again. When I look at the photo credits in many landscape books, they were shot on 645 (and Pentax at that). Also, if you pop a Outdoor Photographer Magazine to this day many of the full page featured shots are 645 (and Pentax at that). And while I don't read Nat Geo a lot, I seem to remember quite a few photos being from the Pentax 645. Since Pentax didn't make a square back we'd have to assume those shots were taken on rectangular format and the photographer preffered that format rather than square.</p>

<p>I'm not under the belief any sensor or format is for "hobbyist" afterall there are many hobbyist shooting 4x5 and 8x10 cameras, there are hobbyist shooting 5Ds and D3s, as well as MF digital. Generally I have found, the more money a person has to invest in the hobby, the more they will invest. The format you shoot really doesn't automatically group you into a subset of photographer.</p>

<p>Formats are the result of a need, usually a compromise of portability to IQ, or perhaps a compromise of frames per roll. Nevertheless the compromise are often a result of necessity.</p>

<p>Wedding photogs most likely (not having shot any but observed a few) do not have a lot of time to reload cameras. So 645 wth it's 16-33 frame capacity and interchangable inserts and backs was a nice compromise.</p>

<p>Many landscapers bracket the hell out of a sure fire image including focus and exposure. Some even do in camera simultaneous duplicates, rather than pay for dupes, or risk losing a slide that is sent out for duplication after the fact. This is another reason MF was popular for landscapers.<br /></p>

<p>Justin, present company excepted, I wouldn't ordinarily consider landscapers to be professionals any more than I'd consider an occasional wedding photographer to be a professional..a professional is somebody who pays his rent/mortgage with photography, not somebody who occasionally makes a $ with a camera...IMO. <br>

Many wedding photogs used 220 when they could afford the best equipment...and of course they carried multiple backs, didn't have any problem reloading.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Justin,<br>

I don't buy your assertions that 3x2 won out in the marketplace either. It just happened to be there, and people used it. Kind of like Windows. If you were correct, then most albums, frames and mats would also be 3x2, which is not the case. Most people end up cropping, except for 4x6. There's a reason view cameras are 8x10 and 4x5. I think if 35mm cameras had been a 4x5 ratio from the beginning, no one would be saying "why haven't they made a wider format?"<br>

Scott</p>

<p>Another pic.</p>

 

<p align="center"><img src="http://www.penta-club.ru/forum/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=51169" alt="" /></p>

<p>And the original spy photo from the <a href="00T7aM">other rumour thread</a> :</p>

 

<p align="center"><img src="http://www.kidfry.com/images/dpreview/NewPentax/KXX.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Huh, are you trying to put this back on topic?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The entry-level models that look pitiful to me are the Nikons that have crippled AF lens use. But I agree with Justin that the KM/2000 is too stripped down for me as well. But at least it takes all the lenses, even old ones, and still has the SR to enhance their use.</p>

<p>1/250 sec flash sync and 5 fps, with a "much better" AF system? Sounds like the camera you have been waiting for, Justin!! I wondered about why it is not simply the K30D. But the more I look at these specs, I think I see why. It rather makes sense. The KM/2000 is the basic entry model. The 3-number models, K100, 110, and 200 have been entry level but also built well or very well with weather sealing, top LCD and full-featured, for the serious advanced user who wants a compact design and backup. The 2-number models, K10, 20 have been for serious advanced and professional users who want a full-size model, built very well, with weather sealing and advanced controls. To go to a level above that would require at least near 100% VF, a higher standard flash sync at least 1/200 sec or more, higher fps shooting rate, advanced AF, a refined live view, advanced LDC display, more sophisticated in-camera imaging and processing controls, and a yet higher build quality. So this new level gets a 1-number model name: K7.</p>

<p>Up to ISO 6400 with "better noise treatment"? I wonder if this means by user's choice control, or if Canikon methods will be adopted of taking this matter out of user control, for auto processing of NR, which smooths over noise but also smears detail. I like what my K20D has been doing for me, and my K200D as well.</p>

<p>I wonder if the new model will provide the crisp images right out of camera, like Javier, myself, and others have been enjoying wth the K20D and K200D- or will it be one of those models needing to have images finessed by post-processing??</p>

<p>Only time, testing, and reviews will provide answers to actual performance characteristics. Meanwhile, I can take all the time I need with my K20D and K200D models giving me such fine results. I believe Javier, who said the K20D can do over 4 fps with the battery grip, though I have yet to need even that.</p>